Quentin Tarantino is in serious trouble. A few months ago, he was the beloved auteur who made off-key, quirky movies like “Django Unchained.” Then, he was the guy who kept Harvey Weinstein’s disgusting secrets because he kept funding his off-key, quirky movies like “Django Unchained.” Now, he’s the guy who choked Uma Thurman with a chain on the set of “Kill Bill.” Thurman also released footage of a car crash that she was forced into by the director.

Thurman didn’t want to do the stunt, but Tarantino made her do it (lying about the safety of both the car and the road in the process) and she ended up veering off the road and crashing.

Tarantino has since come to call this incident “the biggest regret of my life.” But he’s only saying that now that it’s gone public and it’s casting doubt on the future of his career, so what does he really regret?

Thurman backlash brought out Polanski defence

In the midst of all the backlash for this incident, with Judd Apatow pointing out that the director’s next movie is about Sharon Tate, who was involved with Roman Polanski, a fellow filmmaker who was charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in the 1970s. After this, an interview that Tarantino did with Howard Stern resurfaced in which Tarantino defended Polanski and said that his victim “wanted” it.

Tarantino apparently has his own idea of what rape is and he doesn’t classify what Polanski did as proper rape.

He even referred to the term “rape” as merely a “buzzword” and said that Polanski’s victim “dated” him and therefore “wanted to have [sex]” with him. But that’s a very narrow view of the situation. While the term “statutory rape” could apply to consensual sex with a minor, a minor does not have the mental capacity or maturity to know if they really want it, plus Polanski (who was supposed to be the grownup in the situation) filled her with alcohol and pills before making his move.

So, it is definitely rape and Polanski is definitely guilty and in the wrong, and that’s why he fled the country right after it and why, even after all these years, the US court system still refuses to let him off for it. Now that the interview has resurfaced in the climate of the #TimesUp movement, Tarantino has come to his senses and realised he was wrong for saying those things, so he has apologised to Samantha Geimer, Polanski’s victim (who has been followed by this crime for her entire life), and admitted, “I was ignorant.”

‘Reservoir Dogs’ director admits he wanted to ‘[play] Devil’s advocate’

Tarantino justified making the comments by saying that when Stern brought up the topic of Polanski, he decided to “[play] Devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative.” The apology comes after Geimer herself spoke to New York Daily News and said, “I’m not upset [about Tarantino’s remarks], but I would probably feel better if he realizes now that he was wrong.”

So, right at the beginning of the director’s apology statement, which was first given to IndieWire, he says, “I was wrong.” And he also ended it with a similar sentiment, saying that “above all, [I was] incorrect.” This is probably the worst time for Tarantino to be about to start shooting a new movie, reportedly costing the schmucks at Sony around $100 million, that features none other than Roman Polanski as a character...

As these stories have been coming out, Tarantino has been revealed to be just as violent as the very personal films he makes (and somehow no one saw that coming). He acted out a lot of the on-screen violence himself, including spitting in Uma Thurman’s face, choking her with a chain, and strangling Diane Kruger on the set of “Inglourious Basterds,” all under the guise of ‘oh, well, it’s for the scene, so...’ These incidents have opened up a whole new chapter in the #TimesUp movement. It’s not just about the way women are treated sexually. It’s about the general treatment of women in the entertainment business, on the whole.